Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebirdman Of Alcathays

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

---

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

In over 5 decades of having an interest in matters of fauth, I can only recall members of one group taking such violent and deadly actions. Unfortunately their understanding of their own prophecies means that many of them believe that they can personally accelerate the end-time events by bringing about such world instability.
In contrast those who read and understand Biblical Prophecy know that God is alone in control of all such future events and their timing on the world stage.

---

Well if god is in control of future events then he's either very mean or forgets

Only someone very mean would allow hitler to try and slaughter half of Europe

Either he's mean or he can't control future events 🤷

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well if god is in control of future events then he's either very mean or forgets

Only someone very mean would allow hitler to try and slaughter half of Europe

Either he's mean or he can't control future events 🤷

---

Which one are we talking about tho? Allah or Joe Pesci?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Looks like no-one is going to provide any evidence of God's words passed onto Moses, including the book of Genesis and the talking snake.
Surely, the veracity of what are meant to be God's words represents the basis of all that followed in various Abrahamist holy books.

---

Still no takers on the Moses front.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Still no takers on the Moses front.....

---

Crikey.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebirdman Of Alcathays

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

---

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

---

Atheists don't (or shouldn't) hope theism isn't true, it just doesn't make any sense to us. You seem to assume because it doesn't, this is because of bias and stubbornness and we're sticking to our beliefs, but there's no leap of faith - there doesn't have to be.

I'm not sure I'll watch the movie, thanks, but I'll bookmark it and try and have a gander when I can. Strobel appears to be a convert, though, and just wants to tell people how he converted.

The Survey is wrong we have created the new secular religions of Woke and intersectionality which is destroying the usa and now us people just love a cause to hate on others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robjohn44

The Survey is wrong we have created the new secular religions of Woke and intersectionality which is destroying the usa and now us people just love a cause to hate on others.

---

I think ignorant religious people are the worst haters of them all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robjohn44

The Survey is wrong we have created the new secular religions of Woke and intersectionality which is destroying the usa and now us people just love a cause to hate on others.

---

Don't forget the religion of people talking shite on the internet which you're clearly a devout follower of

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robjohn44

The Survey is wrong we have created the new secular religions of Woke and intersectionality which is destroying the usa and now us people just love a cause to hate on others.

---

Touch grass you ****ing dork

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

---

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

---

I will go with that version

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

---

Sounds about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

---

The Jews, Christians and Muslims perceive his role as rather different though, don't they? Son of God or not son of God? One component of The Holy Trinity and with God and Jesus effectively being the same entity or not? Tis nothing more than very interesting folklore. Many Abrahamist stories were lifted from previous religions and, in turn, the Christians, Jews, Mormons et al added their own layers at later stages. Some believers consider the Garden of Eden story as being absolutely true and others consider it to be allegorical. Almost every believer adheres to the religion they are exposed to as a child regardless of when and where they were born.
There's no evidence that could convince a person to believe in these stories and it's all about indoctrination and gullibility.
And it's hugely ironic that the Almighty chose to make his presence on Earth two thousand years ago and gave recent centuries a miss when world wars were taking place and millions of his believers were being sent to the gas chambers. He was obviously content with his representatives turning water into wine (Jesus), creating a hillock from whence a speech could be made (St David) and walking in the air, (Ja'far ibn Abi Talib), appearance of clothing when required (Zacharius) etc.
It's no coincidence that these relgions were formed at a time when the average person was illiterate and had no or little understanding of science as we know it today. Many natural features and events can be explained today and intelligent people know that we don't know it all. To think that invented stories from thousands of years ago (and which were often versions of previous ones) is quite amusing. Religion is fascinating mythology, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Sounds about right.

---

I also find the theory interesting that Jesus was actually the same person as Jesus Barrabus - a insurrectionist against the Roman occupation. Barrabus meaning "son of the father". He could well have been a freedom fighter of sorts but this aspect of his history has been expunged by people wanting to hold him up to be the pure son of god a long time after he died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

---

Who could’ve imagined an “event” from over 2000 years ago in a time where most people couldn’t read or write and who spoke a different language might’ve had some alterations and embellishments.

English as a language from 1000 years ago would be incomprehensible to us, yet the bible used back then and the bible used now are supposedly the original unaltered writings of Jesus’ disciples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Who could’ve imagined an “event” from over 2000 years ago in a time where most people couldn’t read or write and who spoke a different language might’ve had some alterations and embellishments.

English as a language from 1000 years ago would be incomprehensible to us, yet the bible used back then and the bible used now are supposedly the original unaltered writings of Jesus’ disciples.

---

I think you are confusing language with interpretation of events - and events that were uncannily similar to events assigned to other pre-existing deities in the same geographical area. Did the snake in the Garden of Eden talk or did the equivalent of Chinese whispers create that story? If the latter, how can anyone believe anything from such religious tomes?

Leviathan............shove it !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I also find the theory interesting that Jesus was actually the same person as Jesus Barrabus - a insurrectionist against the Roman occupation. Barrabus meaning "son of the father". He could well have been a freedom fighter of sorts but this aspect of his history has been expunged by people wanting to hold him up to be the pure son of god a long time after he died.

---

An insurrectionist or a collaborationist.... 'Render unto Caesar....' Or just a very naughty boy!

Attachment 4618

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lemma

Attachment 4618

---

More proof that miracles do not happen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Who could’ve imagined an “event” from over 2000 years ago in a time where most people couldn’t read or write and who spoke a different language might’ve had some alterations and embellishments.

English as a language from 1000 years ago would be incomprehensible to us, yet the bible used back then and the bible used now are supposedly the original unaltered writings of Jesus’ disciples.

---

As you say who would have imagined that an event from over 2000 years ago marks time as we know it today, that THE BOOK...(from the Greek) is the bible, yet people dismiss the contents as a non event or fiction.As the bible says...'He dwelt amongst them and they know him not'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

---

I've noticed that this theory often comes up. Please explain who were these people who "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The early Christians were persecuted and martyred for their faith - not exactly a benefit I'd have thought! And yet Christianity flourished despite all attempts to strangle it at birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I've noticed that this theory often comes up. Please explain who were these people who "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The early Christians were persecuted and martyred for their faith - not exactly a benefit I'd have thought! And yet Christianity flourished despite all attempts to strangle it at birth.

---

You’ve never embellished a story to make it a bit better down the pub? People exaggerate and people lie all the time. I’m guilty of it and I’m sure most people on here can admit to it as well as you.

Even if John didn’t, do you not think it’s possible that over the last 2000 years the story could’ve evolved and expanded? Especially in a time when reading and writing was very rare and most stories would’ve been word of mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

You’ve never embellished a story to make it a bit better down the pub? People exaggerate and people lie all the time. I’m guilty of it and I’m sure most people on here can admit to it as well as you.

Even if John didn’t, do you not think it’s possible that over the last 2000 years the story could’ve evolved and expanded? Especially in a time when reading and writing was very rare and most stories would’ve been word of mouth.

---

I agree that people down the pub may embellish stories of course but that doesn't answer my question about who were these people who so-called "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The inescapable fact is that the Christian church came into being very soon after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Why would those early apostles initiate and perpetuate a movement based on something which they knew was untrue – again, where was the “benefit” to them knowing that they risked death or persecution by being involved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

As you say who would have imagined that an event from over 2000 years ago marks time as we know it today, that THE BOOK...(from the Greek) is the bible, yet people dismiss the contents as a non event or fiction.As the bible says...'He dwelt amongst them and they know him not'

---

Yes and we look up today at Mars, Jupiter, Mercury, Venus and Saturn and sail across the Atlantic Ocean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

You’ve never embellished a story to make it a bit better down the pub? People exaggerate and people lie all the time. I’m guilty of it and I’m sure most people on here can admit to it as well as you.

Even if John didn’t, do you not think it’s possible that over the last 2000 years the story could’ve evolved and expanded? Especially in a time when reading and writing was very rare and most stories would’ve been word of mouth.

---

Much of historic literature is in fact written long after the event, in fact in many cases hundreds of years later. However the Books of the BIBLE that make up the New Testament were in fact written by eye witnesses of the Resurrection, and as far as the Gospels are concerned that speak of Christ raised from the dead, we see below that they must have been written BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD....

The first three Gospels, and possibly also the fourth, were apparently written while the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contains predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that Titus the Roman destroyed the city and Temple in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels most likely occurred sometime before this event, otherwise their destruction would have been recorded. The fact that all four gospels are written from the perspective that the city of Jerusalem and the temple had not been destroyed gives evidence of an early date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I agree that people down the pub may embellish stories of course but that doesn't answer my question about who were these people who so-called "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The inescapable fact is that the Christian church came into being very soon after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Why would those early apostles initiate and perpetuate a movement based on something which they knew was untrue – again, where was the “benefit” to them knowing that they risked death or persecution by being involved?

---

Clearly there is a benefit if you are at the head of a small but growing splinter religion to convince as many more people to join by sexing its history up a bit. Even if they risked death or persecution by being involved. There are groups that are still doing it today, being a member of something like ISIS in a western country or indeed most countries will unsurprisingly not work well in your favour if it comes out, but that doesn't men they aren't there. And do they embellish history and current events to become more effective anti west propaganda - absolutely. I'm sure most of them absolutely believe they are doing the right thing. And those at the top will absolutely want to retain and extend their power. Whether the early apostles really believed in the "magic" jesus stories, or they just really believed in what he stood for before his execution and would happily lean into the magic stuff if they thought it would help their ultimate cause. A very different example, but you see all kinds of spurious "evidence" all over the internet on just about any controversial subject or conspiracy theory:- plandemic/pandemic, palestine v israel, brexit and anything else you can think of. We've all probably seen bogus information being gleefully shared on any of these topics - the people who generated the original items must surely know that they are making it up? but they think the end justifies the means, or they believe it to be true, so they will fabricate some "evidence" for it so other people can find the "truth" . So the argument that the resurrection etc must have happened because the people who said it did risked being executed by just being involved doesn't really follow for me. If they are motivated to make their cause succeed - whether thats for personal power, or a belief in doing the right thing then people are definitely able to lean into a narrative that they know deep down isnt true, or are able to suspend their disbelief entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Much of historic literature is in fact written long after the event, in fact in many cases hundreds of years later. However the Books of the BIBLE that make up the New Testament were in fact written by eye witnesses of the Resurrection, and as far as the Gospels are concerned that speak of Christ raised from the dead, we see below that they must have been written BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD....

The first three Gospels, and possibly also the fourth, were apparently written while the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contains predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that Titus the Roman destroyed the city and Temple in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels most likely occurred sometime before this event, otherwise their destruction would have been recorded. The fact that all four gospels are written from the perspective that the city of Jerusalem and the temple had not been destroyed gives evidence of an early date.

---

Does the document from before 70AD still exist? Could I look at it and read the words written on it 1950+ years ago?
Today, I could write about my experiences at Ninian Park but that isn’t proof I wrote about it before it was knocked down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Does the document from before 70AD still exist? Could I look at it and read the words written on it 1950+ years ago?
Today, I could write about my experiences at Ninian Park but that isn’t proof I wrote about it before it was knocked down.

---

Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls date right back to 200BC, so there's no shortage of material to read if you are serious.

Sure you could write about Ninian Park, but it's extremely unlikely that you would not include a comment about the CCS to give the reader a perspective from 2021.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

---

just reading the comments put me right off. i'll stay ignorant and faithless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTaL ITK

just reading the comments put me right off. i'll stay ignorant and faithless

---

You are in a large majority, yet most people laughed at Noah. Nothing changes.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" - John 3v19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTaL ITK

just reading the comments put me right off. i'll stay ignorant and faithless

---

Same. It's sad to see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

You are in a large majority, yet most people laughed at Noah. Nothing changes.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" - John 3v19

---

Why do you think quoting events that the people you're arguing about don't think happened, is a good argument? You may as well quote the Famous Five to me.

Another thing about religion that I despise is, "you're going to hell if you don't believe"....... I can't prove this but it's my faith, it's your job to convince me I'm wrong......mental.

I believe Paddington Bear advises Boris Johnson....... It's not up to me to prove my mental belief though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNDERHILL1927

Why do you think quoting events that the people you're arguing about don't think happened, is a good argument? You may as well quote the Famous Five to me.

Another thing about religion that I despise is, "you're going to hell if you don't believe"....... I can't prove this but it's my faith, it's your job to convince me I'm wrong......mental.

I believe Paddington Bear advises Boris Johnson....... It's not up to me to prove my mental belief though.

---

I didn't think atheists had beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Clearly there is a benefit if you are at the head of a small but growing splinter religion to convince as many more people to join by sexing its history up a bit. Even if they risked death or persecution by being involved. There are groups that are still doing it today, being a member of something like ISIS in a western country or indeed most countries will unsurprisingly not work well in your favour if it comes out, but that doesn't men they aren't there. And do they embellish history and current events to become more effective anti west propaganda - absolutely. I'm sure most of them absolutely believe they are doing the right thing. And those at the top will absolutely want to retain and extend their power. Whether the early apostles really believed in the "magic" jesus stories, or they just really believed in what he stood for before his execution and would happily lean into the magic stuff if they thought it would help their ultimate cause. A very different example, but you see all kinds of spurious "evidence" all over the internet on just about any controversial subject or conspiracy theory:- plandemic/pandemic, palestine v israel, brexit and anything else you can think of. We've all probably seen bogus information being gleefully shared on any of these topics - the people who generated the original items must surely know that they are making it up? but they think the end justifies the means, or they believe it to be true, so they will fabricate some "evidence" for it so other people can find the "truth" . So the argument that the resurrection etc must have happened because the people who said it did risked being executed by just being involved doesn't really follow for me. If they are motivated to make their cause succeed - whether thats for personal power, or a belief in doing the right thing then people are definitely able to lean into a narrative that they know deep down isnt true, or are able to suspend their disbelief entirely.

---

There we go once more. For the umpteenth time of asking - who were these so-called "people at the top"? The early church was just a collection of ordinary people who met in each other's homes. This is from Acts 4, 32-35:

“Now the large group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And the apostles were giving testimony with great power to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed for each person’s basic needs.”

These verses are part of a consistent New Testament picture that points to radical generosity, self-sacrifice, and concern for others over ourselves. Further, they point also to the New Testament emphasis on the local church as an intimately connected faith community in stark contrast to the world around them. Does this sound like a bunch of people "at the top" manipulating others?

How can you compare this group of people with ISIS!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNDERHILL1927

Why do you think quoting events that the people you're arguing about don't think happened, is a good argument? You may as well quote the Famous Five to me.

Another thing about religion that I despise is, "you're going to hell if you don't believe"....... I can't prove this but it's my faith, it's your job to convince me I'm wrong......mental.

I believe Paddington Bear advises Boris Johnson....... It's not up to me to prove my mental belief though.

---

I didn't think atheists had beliefs? :wink:

Sorry - posted twice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I didn't think atheists had beliefs?

---

Yes. Rational ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I didn't think atheists had beliefs?

---

Au contraire.